Borges v. The Heldrich Hotel and Spa et al

Filing 90

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court hereby orders that Plaintiff's New York Labor Law causes of action are dismissed. In addition, the Court dismisses as moot Defendants' motion in Limine to Dismiss Pl.'s Causes of Action Premised on N.Y. Labor Law. Ordered by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 2/25/2013. (Brucella, Michelle)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
ISRAEL BORGES,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
09-cv-4830 (WFK) (VVP)
-againstHELDRICH ASSOCIATES LLC D/B/A THE
HELDRICH HOTEL AND SPA, and BMC-THE
BENCHMARK MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------)(
WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge
Israel Borges ("Plaintiff') brings this action against Defendants HeIdrich Associates LLC
d/b/a The HeIdrich Hotel and Spa ("Defendant HeIdrich"), BMC-The Benchmark Management
Company ("Defendant BMC"), and Sani Systems, Ltd. for injuries he sustained while cleaning a
kitchen stove at The HeIdrich Hotel. Plaintiff and Sani Systems, Ltd. filed a StipUlation of
Discontinuance, with prejudice, as to Sani Systems, Ltd. only on April 15,2010. Stipulation of
Discontinuance as to Defendant Sani Systems, Ltd. Only, Dkt. No. 21.
In June 2012, the remaining Defendants filed a Choice of Law motion, arguing New
Jersey law applies to both conduct-regulating and loss-allocating issues. Defs.' Mot. for Choice
of New Jersey Law, Dkt. No. 64. Two months later, the remaining Defendants filed a motion in
limine to dismiss Plaintiffs New York Labor Law causes of action. Defs.' Mot. in Limine to
Dismiss PI.'s Causes of Action Premised on N.Y. Labor Law, Sections 200 and 241(6), Dkt. 75.

On August 30,2012, this Court granted Defendants' Choice of Law motion, holding that
New Jersey law applies to the conduct-regulating and loss-allocating issues in this case. Borges
v. Heidrich Assocs., 09-cv-4830, 2012 WL 3779214 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30,2012) (Kuntz., J.). As a
result, both Plaintiff and Defendants now concede that Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs
New York Labor Law causes of action is moot since any labor law claims would have to be
brought under New Jersey law. Defs.' Reply to PI.'s Opp. To Motion in Limine to Dismiss PI.'s
Causes of Action Premised on N.Y. Labor Law, Dkt. No. 84; PI.'s Reply to Defs.' Mot. in
Limine to Dismiss PI.'s N.Y. Labor Law Claims, Dkt. No. 87.

This Court agrees with the parties, and hereby orders that Plaintiffs New York Labor
Law causes of action are dismissed.

In addition, the Court dismisses as moot Defendants'

motion in Limine to Dismiss PI.'s Causes of Action Premised on N.Y. Labor Law.

SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 25, 2013

s/WFK

TZ,II

2